Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thanks for that. Should I still apply for a time order or just continue to make payments as normal?
    • Autocorrect typo. For “ admission instructive settlement" read "administrative settlement"
    • No such thing as bailiffs in the north anymore. HMRC have certain statutory powers, but obviously, they don't apply here. The legislation is much like the rest of the UK: MB either chases the debt themselves or sells it (or a %age) to a DCA. The DCA has no more rights than the original creditor had. They have to apply for a collection judgment against you through the Enforcement of Judgements Office. Hence @lolerz blunt point that
    • This is the full appeal & response :    You reported that you were the registered keeper but is not prepared to state who was driving at the time the parking charge was issued. You reported that you are being held liable for the parking charge.         You completed the appeal on 09/02/2023 18:19:20. Upon arriving at the shopping centre The driver attempted to park in the disabled bay, which at the time was encroached by another vehicle already parked well outside of their bay, not displaying a badge. Due to the nature of the visit, the driver was required to park promptly and exit the vehicle, whilst displaying the blue disabled badge. Upon appealing, apparently the only thing that matters in this case is the sign post stating the parking bays must be adhered to at all times. Without any recognition for the fact the driver was physically not able to park elsewhere & correctly displayed their blue parking badge     The operator made their Prima Facie Case on 16/02/2023 15:02:06.   The Operator Reported That... The appellant was the driver. The appellant was the keeper. The operator is seeking keeper liability in accordance with PoFA.. ANPR/CCTV was used. The Notice to Keeper was sent on 15/12/2022. A response was received from the Notice to Keeper. The ticket was issued on 09/12/2022. The Notice to Keeper (ANPR) was sent in accordance with PoFA. The charge is based in Contract.   The Operator Made The Following Comments... The vehicle was not parked fully within the confines of a marked parking bay whilst parked in one of the carpark that we manage. Signage displayed throughout the site states "Vehicles to be parked within the confines of a marked parking bay". As the vehicle was in breach of the terms and conditions that are stated on the contractual signage throughout the site, a Parking Charge was issued.  As stated in the NGP initial appeal:  Arrived on site with a disabled passenger & as is visible in photo, we were unable to park in the disabled bay due to the other vehicle in the photo encroaching the disabled bay, meaning my passenger could not physically get out of the vehicle if we had parked between the marked lines. Please see photo for proof of blue badge & photo of parking on the day. Blue badge was displayed whilst parked.  >> We would just like to clarify that upon receiving their appeal, we reviewed the CCTV footage from the date in question and at no point did a passenger leave the vehicle nor is the keeper mentioning these facts to this IAS appeal.  We note that during the appeal process that we were provided with a disabled badge, but not the full badge showing whose badge this belongs to. Nevertheless the driver failed to correctly park within confines of the bay.  However for the IAS adjudicators viewing only we have attached a file titled "PCN 400786" This file shows the events that occurred with the driver on this date.  Please see file titled "Malpas Road Shopping Park" which shows what the signage looks like onsite.  Please see the file titled "Vehicle Location" which shows where the vehicle was parked and where the signage was located near by.         I am satisfied that the Appellant was parked in an area where the Operator has authority to issue Parking Charge Notices and to take the necessary steps to enforce them. A number of images, including a site map have been provided to me by the Operator which shows the signage displayed on this site. After viewing those images I am satisfied that the signage is sufficient to have brought to the attention of the Appellant the terms and conditions that apply to parking on this site.  The signage at this site makes it clear that parking is on private land and that vehicles must be parked wholly within the confines of a marked parking bay and that a failure to comply with that term and condition will result in the issuing of a Parking Charge Notice. I can see from the photographs provided that the Appellant was not parked within the confines of a marked bay, which the Appellant accepts. Whilst I appreciate the circumstances raised by the Appellant, mitigating/extenuating circumstances cannot be taken into account. Simply by parking outside of a marked bay the Appellant breached the displayed terms and conditions and as such I am satisfied that the PCN was correctly issued on this occasion. I have considered all the issues raised by both parties in this Appeal and I am satisfied that the Operator has established that the Parking Charge Notice was properly issued in accordance with the law and therefore this Appeal is dismissed.  Currently appealed 400786 Issued on 09/12/2022 by New Generation Parking Management Ltd to vehicle registration Originally rejected by operator on 02/02/2023
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 160 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Debt Management Companies


DoubleU
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5115 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi all, I wonder if this is an interesting point of contention:

I used a debt management company for about 30 months, who charged me £ 100.= per month for their services. (keeping DCA's from calling me, or stop them from writing to me and harrassing me etc etc. and the usual stuff.) They told me "You will not have to deal with anymore phonecalls or official documents once we are handling your account. (that was not true for a start!)

Anyway, because of the pressure, we thought that at the time this was a good idea. After about 30 month, we decided that it was time to take matters in our own hands, and that it would be a much better idea to take the monthly £100,= and use that to add to our repayments. Then we found this wonderful site and have since started to send out requests for CCA's, which we are now processing. Lots to be told on that.

 

What I now would like to know is the following: Aren't the debt management companies, when they start to act and manage your debts on your behalf, responsible for verifying whether debts that they manage on your behalf, and for which service you pay them a fee, are indeed legally enforceable before they phone the creditors and agree some sort of half hearted repayment schedule under the expected 'due diligence' exercise they are required to make, so that they can deal with or 'manage' your debts in a professional and responsible manner?

 

I would dearly like to take the crooks I dealt with to court and claim my monthly fee back on the basis that they were negligent and failed to apply 'due diligence' to see whether the debts in question were enforceable or not and thus deliver the contracted services!! ( approx 30 X £100.=)

 

Is there anybody on the forum who knows anything about this sort of stuff??

 

I am curious, not only that, but the £3000 in accumulated wasted fees would come in very handy to pay off some of the debts!!!!

 

Anybody can give me advice on this please?

 

Thanks

DoubleU

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have had a simliar problem and would like to know if anything can be done with claiming back money from these companys. I have been charged £200 upfront fee, which I am most sure wasnt the amount that was told to me at the begining . I am on benifits and I phoned the debt management company today and they advised me that I would be best off cancelling and [aying the people directly. They havent provided information requested by one company that I now know of who are now threatning further action and demanding money off me.

I was paying £20 a week from begining of october and they have only just started making small payments to the companys inthe last three weeks only being 10% of the total amount owed.

one of the companies also that I owed money to that they have paid is southbank captial who i have found out tonight shouldnt really be taking money as they are not licenced, so refering to the above case is this something we can use against the DMC?

Any advice appriciated!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Karmaceutical,

Yup, it looks to me like you have similar reasons, and I believe there are many more of us, who have wasted tens of thousands of pounds on these companies, which are basically 'bloodsuckers' Their business is to earn money over the back of those that are in financial trouble. I am not for a minute suggesting that they don't do anything at all; unfortunately the only thing they do do, is negotiate a low (????) rate of repayment on behalf of the debtor. They don't challenge, they don't ask, they certainly don't manage. A quick setup on transfer of minor sums on a monthly basis, which in my case probably took no more than 15 mins complete, which I could have done myself. When you miss a month, the act like DCA's, and as soon as you decide to stop the agreement, they stop talking to you and refuse any further communications. I wonder if there is a similar way to legally force them to return all documents to you. An amended Request for CCA or a SAR perhaps? Anybody who knows? Anybody who can help?

regards

DoubleU

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Surfer01,

Yes I agree, and sorry, but I have to add, I know this now. At the time I had never heard of CCC, let alone Payplan. So went with one that sounded good! Their name sounds like they are solicitors! In the process they took my (original) papers, never returned them and p[aid my fees to keep the creditors and DCA's poff my back. The calls and letters never ceised as they faithfully promised, and which I accepted in good faith. Now I have taken it all back, I have CCA'd all of them, and find some don't have properly executed C agreements. My argument is that they failed in their duties of Care to check whether my Credit agreements were enforceable and therefore compelled me in a) making payments that I should not have paid. and b) they did not apply due diligence on my state of affairs. I don't even know whether they actually did do CCA requests and when unenforceable, they just kept charging me? So, if you go back to my original post, do we have a case for asking the fees back??

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose a lot depends on the type of agreement that you signed with them. In order to help you we probably would need to see the agreement along with the T & Cs but with all your detaisl removed. Unfortunatley what they tell you verbally and what is in the contract are two different things. What were they supposed to do for their monthly fee of £100?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Surfer01,

Thanks for your reaction.

I agree, that is a good starting point. I need to delve into the 'archives' and see if we still have it. If not, I will have to construe something that compels them to send me a 'eligible true copy' of the original agreement. I don't think this can be achieved with a variation of the CCA Request, because it would fall under a different law or section. I will have to write to them, I suppose by recorded delivery and see what happens. I'll get back on this, I need to speak to 'her who is in charge'. I don't know where the papers are 'hidden'. I suspect that, like DCA's, they will know immediately what is going on as soon as they receive my letter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

Yes, thjat's a good idea. I was trying to avoid having to spend the tenner, but if I want to pursue this, I suppose that is the best solution.

Thanks Surfer01. I'll do that this week-end.

Bye

DoubleU

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...